were of a sufcient size and the level of hygiene, including in the sanitary facilities was on the whole satisfactory. Report and response published in May 2014, CPT/Inf (2014) 16 and CPT/Inf (2014) 17 Report on the periodic visit to Poland in June 2013 and response of the Polish authorities (treatment of persons in police custody and prison conditions, with a focus on prison health care and prisoners classifed as “dangerous”) 74. The report begins by stressing that the principle of co-operation between states parties to the Convention and the Committee is not limited to facilitating the task of a visiting delegation, but requires that decisive action be taken to improve the situation in the light of the CPT’s recommendations. In this respect, the Committee notes with concern that after fve periodic visits carried out to Poland, little action has been taken to implement several of the CPT’s longstanding recommendations, for example as regards the fundamental safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement agencies, the (still very impoverished) regime for remand prisoners and prison health-care services. 75. The majority of the persons met by the delegation who were, or had recently been, detained by the police indicated that they had been correctly treated. Nevertheless, a signifcant number of allegations of physical illtreatment of persons taken into police custody (including from detained juveniles), both at the time of apprehension and during subsequent questioning (in some cases, with a view to extracting a confession or another statement) were received. The CPT calls upon the General Report of the CPT, 2013-2014 ► Page 38 Polish authorities to pursue rigorously their eforts to combat ill-treatment by police ofcers. The Committee stresses the need to promote a police culture where it is regarded as unprofessional to work and associate with colleagues who resort to ill-treatment. It also recalls that efective investigations capable of leading to the identifcation and punishment of those responsible for ill-treatment are essential. In their response, the Polish authorities refer to regular reminders sent to all police ofcers through various channels, clearly prohibiting ill-treatment of detainees, as well as to training programmes to address the phenomenon of police ill-treatment. As regards safeguards in police custody, it remained the case that it was the exception rather than the rule for persons in police custody to beneft from access to a lawyer, and in the rare cases when they did have this opportunity, the meeting took place in the presence of police ofcers. Further, there was still no provision in Polish law allowing for the appointment of an ex ofcio lawyer before the stage of court proceedings. As regards access to a doctor, the confdentiality of medical examinations (and relevant medical documentation) was not respected in practice. In addition, injuries observed on persons brought to police detention facilities were not always duly recorded. As regards the right of notifcation of custody, many detained persons interviewed by the delegation were in practice not aware of this right. The Polish authorities indicated in their response that legislation was being revised to ensure the confdentiality of the meetings between a detained person and his/her lawyer. 76. In relation to the prisons visited, the delegation did not receive any allegations, nor gathered any evidence of, recent physical ill-treatment by staf at